Our client received medical care from primary care physicians at the same clinic from at least 1980 through 2007. In the early 1990's, he was diagnosed by two echo cardiograms with a bicuspid aortic valve and an enlarged aortic root.

In 2007, our client, while at home, sustained a massive aortic dissection. An emergency surgical repair saved our client's life but left him Pacemaker dependent and with cognitive deficits as the result of hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy and ischemic strokes casually related to the emergency surgical repair of the dissection.

Paul Schweiger filed a claim against the clinic, contending that because of our client's bicuspid aortic valve, he was at increased risk to develop an aortic dissection. He contended that the standard of care required a referral to a cardiologist and serial imaging studies of the aortic root and ascending aorta to evaluate progression of the client's aortic disease and the risk of dissection. He also contended that such serial imaging would have revealed increases in aortic root size and allowed for timely, elective surgery to treat the developing ascending aortic aneurysm prior to dissection.

The defense contended that our client had been advised to come in for yearly clinical exams because of his bicuspid aortic valve and that he failed to follow this advice. The Defense also contended that the standard of care was evolving during the 1990's and prior to 2006.

Paul Schweiger obtained $2,000,000 settlement from the clinic and their insurer.